G L PATHAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of the Government of Rajasthan, Medical and Public Health Department No. F. 1 (142) MPH/74/ Gr. II dated 17th October, 1975 marked Exhibit-17 at page 92 of the Paper Book by which the petitioner, who was Professor of Physiology, S. N Medical Colleges Jodhpur, was compulsorily retired from service on the date of receipt of the order by him after completion of twenty years service by payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was appointed by the Government of Rajasthan as Demonstrator in Physiology after passing M. B. B. S. on 28 February, 1958 and by dint of his merit and high academic qualifications which he acquired later on he was promoted as Professor in Physiology on 30 March, 1963 in R. N. T. Medical College, Udaipur. He goes on to state that he was awarded merit pay by order dated 30 April, 1966 marked Exhibit-1, under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Merit Pay) Rules, 1961. This merit pay continued for a period of five years upto 30 April, 1971 and the period was further extended for five years. In this connection, it has also been stated by him that the merit pay was enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/-p. m. from 11 June, 1973 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Grant of Reward, Merit Awards and Merit Certificates) Rules, 1973. THE petitioner has also made mention of an outstanding research work conducted by him in the subject of Physiology. Inspite of his merit and efficiency, the petitioner's case is that for extraneous reasons and on account of bias against him, certain adverse remarks were made against him in the Confidential Roll of 1966 67. He also admits that during the year 1967-68 certain adverse remarks were recorded against him on the report of Dr. P. D. Mathur, Principal of S. P. Medical College, Bikaner. Thus it is the admitted case of the petitioner that a warning was given to him by order dated 22 January, 1969 and a penalty of censure was also imposed upon him by order dated 2 May, 1970. THEre is further no dispute that all efforts made by the petitioner to get the penalty of censure quashed proved fruitless. THE petitioner's case, in brief, is that he is a highly merited and efficient officer well versed in his subject and the order of compulsory retirement has been passed against him without forming the requisite opinion and that the order is based on collateral and arbitrary grounds. THE order has also been assailed on the ground that it has been passed mala fide and on account of persona! bias against him. In this connection it has also been pointed out that Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as amended is bad, inasmuch as it cannot apply to him retrospectively, as his appointment was made long before the Rule came into force. THE validity of the order has been attacked on the ground that the petitioner could not take the benefit of the earned leave. Lastly it was contended that the period of twenty years service of qualifying service is unreasonable and consequently the Rule is liable to be struck down.

(3.) IN Smt. Manmal vs. State of Rajasthan (10) the learned Judge observed that "for the purpose of consideration of the case of an employee for compulsory retirement, his entire service record has to be considered and the mere fact that the employee was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar could not have the effect of washing away the record of that employee relating to the earlier period. " It was further held thaf "compulsory retirement is not a punishment and no right is taken away by passing the order of compulsory retirement".